Talk:WikiLeaks

Skinfan13's extremely biased and unqualified opinion of your article...

Humour:	7	There are basically three big problems with this article, and a few minor ones. Big one's are an underdeveloped concept, poor images, and sloppy prose. The humor itself isn't so bad, but the problem is that it's very underdeveloped, and thus a minor problem related to the larger problem of an underdeveloped concept. I'll touch more on that under the concept section. I just feel like there is a lot of potential for good jokes that wasn't realized. You spend a lot of time making the page look and sound official to the point that you neglect to put in the punchline.
Concept:	5	OK, I get it. You're spoofing the "leaks" part of wikileaks. This isn't so bad, except you've totally half-baked the idea. You've kept it pretty serious throughout without the accompanying jokes. There are many, many falselinks throughout that are meant to show "credibility" of source, but the problem is that this approach usually requires a little bit of truth thrown in to make it a good parody. Every external and some internal links are all false. The problem with this is that once the reader figures that out, they think you're just making up complete nonsense. The concept could have been good (i.e. parodying the name and then parodying the actual controversy and history of wikileaks from that angle). However, you completely underdeveloped it and left it hanging as just a "parody" without any actual satire, the end result being something that comes off as simply made-up nonsense. I encourage you to think your article over and develop the idea much further.
Prose and formatting:	3	I hate, HATE, HAET red links. That cost you a bunch. The requested articles page is the place to put those links. Otherwise use this format [[actual page name|desired text]] in order to make the links you want go somewhere. Seriously, redlinks have no place on a professionally made page. Secondly, way too many falselinks, and that ties in with the problems I had with your underdeveloped concept. If you're spoofing a real-life part of the wikileaks drama, link to it. A few falselinks are ok in order to make a one-time joke, but doing it as often as you do is just simply annoying as a reader, especially with the amount of citations you have. most uncyc article have only 3-6 footnotes, and they usually link to outside stuff that adds context to the satire. Yours are all false-linked and serve no real purpose.
Images:	3	Very bland images. The captions are pretty vanilla as well. I liked the image at the bottom about Jimbo and the ATM. I would ask one of our seasoned photoshoppers to help you out with that to make it maybe as a fake screenshot of an actual banner featuring your idea. If you're going to use bland images, at least make the captions a little more entertaining.
Miscellaneous:	5	Not that bad overall, but this isn't that great either. Let's just say it needs a little more work to get it to the point where it would be VFH worthy material. Based on what you have right now, I wouldn't vote yes on VFH. However, you have a quality base to build off of and I encourage you to do some more work on this when the contest is done and eventually submit it to VFH.
Final Score:	23	Get some help with the images from our photoshoppers, flesh out your concept more, and get rid of the false and red links and you have yourself a quality article. As of right now, though, this isn't quite ready.
Reviewer:	-- Sf13 1735 EST 6 FEB 2011